Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03661915 = product of:
  0.0732383 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Object

Social Science Research Network

0.028773637 = product of:
  0.11509455 = sum of:
    0.11509455 = weight(_text_:social in 332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11509455 = score(doc=332,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6230592 = fieldWeight in 332, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=332)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social networking tools and visible information about developer activities on open source software (OSS) development platforms can leverage developers' social influence to attract more participation from their peers. However, the differential impacts of such social influence on developers' initial and sustained participation behaviors were largely overlooked in previous research. We empirically studied the impacts of two social influence mechanisms-word-of-mouth (WOM) and observational learning (OL)-on these two types of participation, using data collected from a large OSS development platform called Open Hub. We found that action (OL) speaks louder than words (WOM) with regard to sustained participation. Moreover, project age positively moderates the impacts of social influence on both types of participation. For projects with a higher average workload, the impacts of OL are reduced on initial participation but are increased on sustained participation. Our study provides a better understanding of how social influence affects OSS developers' participation behaviors. It also offers important practical implications for designing software development platforms that can leverage social influence to attract more initial and sustained participation.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 4034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=4034,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 4034, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4034)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we study the location-aware targeted influence maximization problem in social networks, which finds a seed set to maximize the influence spread over the targeted users. In particular, we consider those users who have both topic and geographical preferences on promotion products as targeted users. To efficiently solve this problem, one challenge is how to find the targeted users and compute their preferences efficiently for given requests. To address this challenge, we devise a TR-tree index structure, where each tree node stores users' topic and geographical preferences. By traversing the TR-tree in depth-first order, we can efficiently find the targeted users. Another challenge of the problem is to devise algorithms for efficient seeds selection. We solve this challenge from two complementary directions. In one direction, we adopt the maximum influence arborescence (MIA) model to approximate the influence spread, and propose two efficient approximation algorithms with math formula approximation ratio, which prune some candidate seeds with small influences by precomputing users' initial influences offline and estimating the upper bound of their marginal influences online. In the other direction, we propose a fast heuristic algorithm to improve efficiency. Experiments conducted on real-world data sets demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed algorithms.

0.008138414 = product of:
  0.032553654 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Emotion and sentiment in social and expressive media"

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=5103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 5103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Numerous studies have been conducted on the information interaction behavior of search engine users. Few studies have considered information interactions in the domain of academic search. We focus on conversion behavior in this domain. Conversions have been widely studied in the e-commerce domain, e.g., for online shopping and hotel booking, but little is known about conversions in academic search. We start with a description of a unique dataset of a particular type of conversion in academic search, viz. users' downloads of scientific papers. Then we move to an observational analysis of users' download actions. We first characterize user actions and show their statistics in sessions. Then we focus on behavioral and topical aspects of downloads, revealing behavioral correlations across download sessions. We discover unique properties that differ from other conversion settings such as online shopping. Using insights gained from these observations, we consider the task of predicting the next download. In particular, we focus on predicting the time until the next download session, and on predicting the number of downloads. We cast these as time series prediction problems and model them using LSTMs. We develop a specialized model built on user segmentations that achieves significant improvements over the state-of-the art.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=5505,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 5505, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Currently, web document repositories have been collaboratively created and edited. One of these repositories, Wikipedia, is facing an important problem: assessing the quality of Wikipedia. Existing approaches exploit techniques such as statistical models or machine leaning algorithms to assess Wikipedia article quality. However, existing models do not provide satisfactory results. Furthermore, these models fail to adopt a comprehensive feature framework. In this article, we conduct an extensive survey of previous studies and summarize a comprehensive feature framework, including text statistics, writing style, readability, article structure, network, and editing history. Selected state-of-the-art deep-learning models, including the convolutional neural network (CNN), deep neural network (DNN), long short-term memory (LSTMs) network, CNN-LSTMs, bidirectional LSTMs, and stacked LSTMs, are applied to assess the quality of Wikipedia. A detailed comparison of deep-learning models is conducted with regard to different aspects: classification performance and training performance. We include an importance analysis of different features and feature sets to determine which features or feature sets are most effective in distinguishing Wikipedia article quality. This extensive experiment validates the effectiveness of the proposed model.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

While there have been a growing number of studies on makerspaces in different disciplines, little is known about how young people interact with information in makerspaces. This study aimed to unpack how young people (middle and high schoolers) sought, used, and shared information in voluntary free-choice library makerspace activities. Qualitative methods, including individual interviews, observations, photovoice, and focus groups, were used to elicit 21 participants' experiences at two library makerspaces. The findings showed that young people engaged in dynamic practices of information seeking, use, and sharing, and revealed how the historical, sociocultural, material, and technological contexts embedded in makerspace activities shaped these information practices. Information practices of tinkering, sensing, and imagining in makerspaces were highlighted. Various criteria that young people used in evaluating human sources and online information were identified as well. The study also demonstrated the communicative and collaborative aspects of young people's information practices through information sharing. The findings extended Savolainen's everyday information practices model and addressed the gap in the current literature on young people's information behavior and information practices. Understanding how young people interact with information in makerspaces can help makerspace facilitators and information professionals better support youth services and facilitate makerspace activities.

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 4897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=4897,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4897, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4897)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

28. 1.2006 19:21:22